No no no! Apple has GOT to start using desktop chips in the iMacs. The iMacs are the WORST deal Apple offers because they're selling essentially a laptop for a price well over some i7 solutions! I am completely willing to sacrifice form factor or thinness for a move to decent desktop grade chips, if not at least GPUs.

Apple should be using i5s or the new Lynnfield i7s, those would be the best choice by far. They need to make the thing capable of really competing with the competition! At the LEAST put in the Clarksfield Quadcore i7s.

Sigh. If these new iMacs at least look good, sport some nicer GPUs, and some how improve their chip solution (don't see how since they've maxed out the mobile Core 2 segment), they'll at least be an improvement. And if a price drop comes with that, it will at least be a better price/performance deal.

The logical course of action would be to go with a 24", 27" and 30" Cinema Display lineup.
iMacs would use the first two.

Of course, Apple's logic doesn't always sync up with history or conventional thinking.

I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".

Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?

...the high-end processor in the iMacs has been stuck on the 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo for the past two generations of the iMac. Snow Leopard enables multi-core processors, so I cannot imagine why Apple would not want to offer a quad core processor at least for the high-end iMac.

I know many of the posters here would like to see the highest level of leading edge desktop performance from the iMac, but high-performance within the design constraints and market target for the iMac would be good enough for many potential iMac buyers. I want to buy a new iMac, but it needs to be capable of supporting the latest features of the operating system. With Snow Leopard, this means it had better have more than 2 cores along with a reasonable GPU. I do not need all-out performance, but I do not want to be embarrassed about buying old technology in a shiny new iMac housing.

No, let the carping, whining, second-guessing, and threats begin. A feature or option that either is or isn't present will cause the usual suspects to declare the new iMac line a D.O.A. deal killer. See the post above this one.

Or look at this post and see the fanbois ready to take whatever Apple throws at them. The desire for Quad cores in the iMac is highly justified, having those cores there is the whole point behind GCD. If Apple doesn't provide the hardware to leverage GCD then the developers won't have the incentive to use it.

So yeah to make you happy, I will go on record as saying no quad core no deal. I don't consider myself to be a push over, and certainly not gullible. I won't buy an iMac just because Apple thinks dual core is good enough. It isn't and just puts the platform farther and farther behind performance wise.

In anyevent with the advent of Clarksfield I can't see Apple ignoring this chip. It should be in at least some of the iMacs that debut.

Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?

Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.

I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)

I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.

Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?

Look at the relative growth of desktop machines vs. laptops and tell me that people are rejecting laptop level power. Just because internet tech nerds obsess over dick waving contests and who's got the latest generation tech doesn't mean the average buyer does.

The average buyer checks out a machine and makes a judgement based on a variety of factors-- price, looks, ease of use, apparent quality, etc.

For a lot of people, an all in one machine that looks great and does everything they want it to in a snappy fashion is exactly what they want. They have no idea and could care less where the innards fall within Intel's lineup. It's been a while since pretty much any system sold (excepting netbooks) didn't have plenty of power to do what most people do with their computers.

A lot of the proud owners of PCs with i7 desktop parts will be running Office, email, internet, iTunes, and maybe some light photo editing software, all of which will are already going as fast as they can.

I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.

I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.

I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.

I would love a 30" iMac (you heard it hear first). I would 'Craig's List' my current 20" original white intel iMac and be as happy as a 'pig in Sh*t!' Please, please, please....

I used to hate laptop computers in my PC years and vowed to never ever buy a laptop. I bought my first iMac in 2006 and I loved it. Last year I needed a laptop and was really hesitate to replace my iMac with a laptop (MBP). Well, almost a year with my MBP and I couldn't be happier. The only thing I miss is the big 20" screen and for that I will get the 24" LED Cinema Display in the near future (along with the quad core MBP when they come out)

I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.

Well said, but I'll take it one step further.

I believe that if Apple did boost the iMac's guts, at least on a build-to-order spec, to make it "fully geek compliant" then they would finally bridge the gap that exists between the consumer-driven iMac current line and the Mac Pro folks.

Bottom line is they would encourage a lot more sales for the 'tweeners, without necessarily cannibalizing current Mac Pro sales.

It would be a win-win.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.

I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.

Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.

It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.

I know Apple's been down that road before when they licensed their OS to Power and it didn't work out so well, but if they produced the bargain brand themselves, they'd reap the revenue.

I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.

You can criticize them all you like, I'm not even defending them-- clearly, for some subset of potential customers, a laptop masquerading as a desktop isn't ideal.

However, it's simply pointless to demand that Apple put a given processor into the next iMac, make claims about what they "must" do, or generally carry on like there was some terrible deficiency in play that makes Apple look foolish.

They've been doing this for quite a while now, why would you expect them to suddenly change up their strategy? Laptop parts keep getting more capable, they can do what most people want them to do, and Apple likes to make its machines as small as possible, the end.

Apple isn't gong to abruptly make the iMac a lot thicker or noisier to accommodate desktop parts. They just aren't, that's how they roll. The arguments about what they "should" do are as old as the hills and haven't gotten any more sophisticated: Apple should make a more powerful machine that costs less.

Sure. And they will. Just not to the degree you want.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.

I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)

I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.

I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.

Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.

It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.

Oh please, please, please don't go there!

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

One poster asked who uses an iMac in the kitchen. Well, we do. We have a 24" iMac sitting at the end of one of our kitchen counters. We use it for walk-by access to the Internet, and it's perfectly located because we walk by this location many times a day, checking out the news, movie trailers, Google Maps, recipes, the usual stuff that spontaneously pops up that we wouldn't walk to the office or open a laptop to check on, but can conveniently do so at the always-on kitchen iMac. The sink/water access is at another counter in the kitchen, well away from the iMac.

For serious sit-down work, we have another 24" iMac in our home office, with a separate 23" Cinema Display, scanner, printer, and the usual office extras.

I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.

First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.

Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.

Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.

Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.

All of those statements are wrong.

B-R drives aren't that expensive these days. Apple could buy a drive with B_R playback and DVD and CD writing for less than $100, OEM costs. A recorder would cost them perhaps $50 more.

This is far cheaper than what CD and DVD drives cost when Apple and PC manufacturers started using them. Same thing is true for blank disk prices.

Secondly, if you're just thinking about backing up programs on a disk, think again, The most important things to back up are data and multimedia files. Many people have music libraries that don't come close to fitting on a DVD, even a dual layer disk.

I have folders of high rez photos I've taken that are tens of GB's in size, and I know plenty of others who do as well.

Watching movies on a 1920 x 1200 24" computer monitor can be very satisfying. You obviously haven't tried it.

If Apple would offer this, they would do it the way they have always done it, as an upgrade to the "standard" DVD recorder. It wouldn't add a single penny to what people who didn't want one would pay.

Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.

I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)

I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.

I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs and affordable tower either. I will be happy if Apple keeps the BR out of the iMac and the mini to keep the price lower (build to order - fine, not in the standard models please!). I fully agree with samurai1999, Apple's desktop line is weak. I like iMac's form factor and silent work, but thinner?? Who cares? SL has great technologies for multicore support. Now what? Wait for 10.7 and quad-core computer from Apple (you know, one of those you can actually buy), when everybody else will run 16 cores or so?

I am afraid Apple feels comfortable with the iPhone business and is willing to experiment with the iMac line. Unless they put some magic co-processor or decent video card, bundled with GCD and OpenCL versions of iLife, iWork and Aperture, or slashes the price by 50% (all these extremely unlikely), I just don't understand where Apple is heading.

Edit: well, we should wait and see what and when Apple will pull out before commenting, but...

One poster asked who uses an iMac in the kitchen. Well, we do. We have a 24" iMac sitting at the end of one of our kitchen counters. We use it for walk-by access to the Internet, and it's perfectly located because we walk by this location many times a day, checking out the news, movie trailers, Google Maps, recipes, the usual stuff that spontaneously pops up that we wouldn't walk to the office or open a laptop to check on, but can conveniently do so at the always-on kitchen iMac. The sink/water access is at another counter in the kitchen, well away from the iMac.

For serious sit-down work, we have another 24" iMac in our home office, with a separate 23" Cinema Display, scanner, printer, and the usual office extras.

What do you do for a living to afford those Macs and screens? Are they hiring? (Same goes to the other kitchen poster)

No no no! Apple has GOT to start using desktop chips in the iMacs. The iMacs are the WORST deal Apple offers because they're selling essentially a laptop for a price well over some i7 solutions! I am completely willing to sacrifice form factor or thinness for a move to decent desktop grade chips, if not at least GPUs.

Apple should be using i5s or the new Lynnfield i7s, those would be the best choice by far. They need to make the thing capable of really competing with the competition! At the LEAST put in the Clarksfield Quadcore i7s.

Sigh. If these new iMacs at least look good, sport some nicer GPUs, and some how improve their chip solution (don't see how since they've maxed out the mobile Core 2 segment), they'll at least be an improvement. And if a price drop comes with that, it will at least be a better price/performance deal.

They don't need Lynnfield. If they're going to move up to Nehalem soon, then this is what they'll move to.

I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.

If that is true, than the Mac market has done a complete 180 from where it was even just a couple of years ago. Mac users have always been more computer literate, pursuing bleeding-edge technology since the early days of desktop publishing. Most of the Mac users I know and have supported always went out and bought the latest stuff as soon as it came out - that is how Apple earned its brand loyalty. The advent of consumer use of Macs is a recent trend that is small and growing, the majority of Mac users are still professionals that need the most out of their hardware. This article from Government Computer News illustrates my point:

I like the move towards better aesthetics and I've never liked the iMac after they switched from the swivel arm model. The cinema display however is very nice looking, always has been and I'd love to see the iMac go that route.

It's not good if it's at the expense of higher performance chips but if it brings a price drop, better aesthetics, better serviceability, better backlighting with the same performance, I'd say that it's for the better. I think people would rather be able to afford one than to say 'wow that looks great and it's fast but it's way out of my budget'.

I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.

A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac. It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.

This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.

And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.

And Apple manage to get i5 in there because the "semi-professional audio/video crowd" surely need more than a lame dual core with a crippled video card?

Someone I know is constantly fighting malware in windows, because he can't afford a Mac Pro. iMac is so under spec he would have to upgrade in about a year. He wants a solid mid-range machine that runs Logic pro properly.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything but for the life of me I can't think of any reason to put a computer on a kitchen counter where it might come into contact with water. Please explain, I'm dying of curiosity here.

You're kidding right?

They put computers and TVs on everything these days, they're even on fridges.

Why put a computer in a kitchen:

- music jukebox
- a replacement for TV or movies
- for searching up recipes or storing recipes
- for displaying daily weather and news
- to control lighting/HVAC/window blinds
... and the list goes on...

Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?

You do realize Intel just released it's i7 based laptop chips right? Quad core chips that might be ideal in an iMac.

Quote:

Look at the relative growth of desktop machines vs. laptops and tell me that people are rejecting laptop level power. Just because internet tech nerds obsess over dick waving contests and who's got the latest generation tech doesn't mean the average buyer does.

Nope the average buyer cares about value for the money. If this report is true it represents a massive decrease in the value of the iMac. Contrary to your view it isn't dick waving at all, it is more about having the backbone to resist being taken to the cleaners.

Quote:

The average buyer checks out a machine and makes a judgement based on a variety of factors-- price, looks, ease of use, apparent quality, etc.

I doubt you could find one person these days that does as you describe above. None of those concerns are as important as knowing your money was well spent on a machine that will remain viable for the long haul.

Quote:

For a lot of people, an all in one machine that looks great and does everything they want it to in a snappy fashion is exactly what they want.

Snappy with three generations old technology, I highly doubt it. More so snappy is a relative concept, just because something appears snappy to a user today doesn't make it so in the face of better tech.

Quote:

They have no idea and could care less where the innards fall within Intel's lineup. It's been a while since pretty much any system sold (excepting netbooks) didn't have plenty of power to do what most people do with their computers.

They may not care about the innards in the same way many don't care what is under the hood of their car, but yet they search out engines known to give better performance. Likewise for computers, people want to settle on what they consider is good performance for the dollar they have to spend.

In any event it is plain as day now that dual core machines are a very bad value on the desktop.

Quote:

A lot of the proud owners of P Cs with i7 desktop parts will be running Office, email, internet, iTunes, and maybe some light photo editing software, all of which will are already going as fast as they can.

if they are going as fast as they can doesn't that highlight that the computer is a bit slow? Look it is like this, computers will be fast enough when you can have a fluid conversation with them. That is a ways off yet, so we incrementally get faster machines. These faster machines provide the platforms to run newer generations of software on.

When you highlight old worn software like you did above it is a sign that you are liking forward. That is sad and unamerican. Instead strive to improve in every way and expect the same from companies like Apple. A company needs to be given the opportunity to rise to your expectations and if it can't do that you need to question your relationship with the company.

It is sort of like my former relationship with Dodge, the last Truck I purchased from them was and is crap. So no more business for them, not unsurprisingly it looks like everybody else in the country gas the same attitude ( except for the Obama administration). Do I care that thousands will be out of work, hell no they deserve it frankly. The attitude wth Apple is the same thing, if they want to play the stagnation game then to hell with them and their employees. Apple can do better than dual core in the iMac and it is reasonable for people to pressure them to do so by not buying the product.

Now do I believe this report is true? I don't really know, it could just be somebody jerking Appleinsiders chain for all I know. What I do know is that we have the ideal processor for the iMac on the market right now, it would be absolutely foolish for Apple not to use it. Before you ask, no a pretty enclosure is not a good reason to avoid a quad core, there has to be some balance in the form and function equation.

And Apple manage to get i5 in there because the "semi-professional audio/video crowd" surely need more than a lame dual core with a crippled video card?

Someone I know is constantly fighting malware in windows, because he can't afford a Mac Pro. iMac is so under spec he would have to upgrade in about a year. He wants a solid mid-range machine that runs Logic pro properly.

aW

You're wrong about the power. An iMac can handle pretty much anything that an audio app can throw at it. As for video cards, neither audio nor video programs care much about that. If you're using a high end video program like Motion or other heavily GPU'd app, then you should also be able to afford a Mac Pro. The 4870 or the 285 cards are fine for that purpose, and we should be getting the new 5870 before too long.